MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

908

2012· article· en· W2318240551 on OpenAlexaff
Wendy Lim, Nicole Zytaruk, Waleed Alhazzani, Hussan Murad, Deborah Cook

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary embolismDeep veinHeparinRelative riskIntensive care unitInternal medicineLow molecular weight heparinThrombosisPlaceboSurgeryConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Venous thromboembolism prevention during critical illness is a widely-used quality metric. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the the efficacy and safety of heparin thromboprophylaxis in medical-surgical patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Hypothesis: Heparin will be effective at preventing DVT and PE in the ICU, as in other settings. LMWH will be more effective than UFH at preventing PE. Methods: We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, clinicaltrials.gov and personal files to May 2012. We included randomized trials in adult medical-surgical ICU patients comparing any heparin thromboprophylaxis to another approach, evaluating deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), major bleeding or mortality. In triplicate we abstracted trial characteristics, outcomes and risk of bias. Results: Seven trials involved 7226 patients. Any heparin thromboprophylaxis compared to placebo reduced rates of DVT (pooled risk ratio [RR] 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41, 0.63; P<0.0001; I2=77%) and PE (RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.28, 0.97; P=0.04; I2=0%), but not symptomatic DVT (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.59, 1.25; P=0.43). Major bleeding (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.56, 1.21; P=0.32; I2=50%) and mortality (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.78, 1.02; P=0.09, I2=0%) rates were similar. Compared to unfractionated heparin (UFH), low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) reduced rates of PE (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.39, 1.00; P=0.05; I2=53%) and symptomatic PE (RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.34, 0.97; P=0.04) but not DVT (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.74, 1.08; P=0.26; I2=0%), symptomatic DVT (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.60, 1.25; P=0.44; I2=0%), major bleeding (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.75, 1.26; P=0.83; I2=0%), or mortality (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.82, 1.04; P=0.20; I2=31%). Some inferences are limited by heterogeneity and imprecision. Conclusions: In medical-surgical ICU patients, heparin thromboprophylaxis significantly decreases DVT and PE risk, and LMWH significantly decreases PE risk compared to UFH. Anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis does not affect bleeding or mortality rates.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.431
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.5690.303

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care Medicine→Same topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→French-language works237,207→